Think of it this way, no matter what you or we do matters (remember it's the government we're dealing with here!), no amount of system test and source code review will prevent cheating, whether it's automated or manual, period! Cheating is usually done on the municipal, city, provincial and regional level, and not on the precint level wherein the PCOS will be used, and instead of arguing which is best why not find a way to safeguard the results (from the PCOS precint level to whatever level) and since the election is going to be automated whether we like it the best thing to do is to be VIGILANT.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]>wrote: > The thing is source code review has never been a method for user > acceptance testing. > Mainly because testers are not suppose to know what the programs do > and that testers > need not be programmers. Testers are Professional Systems Analysts who are > conversant with the requirements of the Systems but not programmers. > > I agree with you, that it is strange that the law itself stipulated > source code review. This > tells me that there was no competent advise on how the words of the > law was to be > worded. > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:50 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello again, > > > > Yes, blackbox testing is definitely something that can be done. But, how > can one prove that all possible outcomes have been used? Create a open > source program that generates inputs with pre-computed outputs and compare > them with the PCOS outputs? Pwede din. Then of course prove mathematically > that all inputs are indeed generated by the open source test program. > > > > But, isn't a source review easier? > > > > Also I do find it strange that a source review is in the law. Bidders > entered their bids with this in mind. So what's up with all the fuss? This > just causes doubt in people's minds and doubt is bad especially for > something as sensitive as an election. > > > > Thanks. > > "Sent via BlackBerry from Smart" > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> > > Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:35:38 > > To: <[email protected]>; Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical > Discussion List<[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [plug] COMELEC SUED (Was: The Death of Election 2010 > > SourceCodeReview) > > > > We do it the way it has been done. > > > > Testing the System by Outcomes. > > > > Come up with a set of inputs, and a set of outputs. > > > > If all the outputs (maybe hundreds or thousands) agree with all the > > inputs, then that's acceptable. > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:31 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> How do you suggest we ensure that the code that is running does not have > the badguyvote++ sub-routine? Checking binaries using pre-defined test cases > will probably miss something. > >> > >> "Sent via BlackBerry from Smart" > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> > >> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:09:48 > >> To: <[email protected]>; Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical > Discussion List<[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [plug] COMELEC SUED (Was: The Death of Election 2010 > SourceCode > >> Review) > >> > >> It's efficiency. Code source review will not get you to where you want. > >> > >> It will not reach the objective of knowing whether the System is right > >> in doing what it's suppose to deliver. > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> This is getting out of hand and really entertaining. > >>> > >>> But seriously, what is wrong with a source code audit and a binary > integrity validation mechanism? Just to check if there is not code that > says: "if candidate='good guy' then badguyvote++"? > >>> > >>> "Sent via BlackBerry from Smart" > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> > >>> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:58:59 > >>> To: Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List< > [email protected]> > >>> Subject: Re: [plug] COMELEC SUED (Was: The Death of Election 2010 > Source > >>> Code Review) > >>> > >>> [email protected] is not even in google search. > >>> > >>> Just another one of those pretenders. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Oscar Plameras > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Maybe, just maybe your just one of those pretenders. > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Oscar Plameras > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> I don't understand. Why would you ask the question? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Daniel Escasa <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>> OK, who are you, and what did you do with the Oscar Plameras who > >>>>>> posted this: > http://lists.slug.org.au/archives/slug/2003/08/msg00344.html > >>>>>> and this: > http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20090918.004218.c213bcf2.en.html > >>>>>> ? Oh, and ironically, > >>>>>> http://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections/electronicvoting.html: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <except> > >>>>>> Source code for 2008 software (zipped file in .zip format - 759 > kb)The > >>>>>> eVACS® source code downloadable here is an extract of the voting, > data > >>>>>> entry, and counting modules as used by Elections ACT and is provided > >>>>>> for study purposes only. Not included are: (a) artefacts produced > >>>>>> during the eVACS® development process, such as detailed design > >>>>>> specifications; (b) the base Linux operating system and > configuration > >>>>>> files; (c) the scripts that are used to initialise the vote > databases > >>>>>> and invoke the eVACS® modules. The design information for the eVACS® > >>>>>> system is the property of Software Improvements Pty Ltd. Their > website > >>>>>> is at www.softimp.com.au/. Bona fide researchers interested in > >>>>>> acquiring more of the source code may apply to Software Improvements > >>>>>> using the form at: www.softimp.com.au/evacs/contactus.html > >>>>>> </excerpt> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ironic because you're in Australia. And you're even too lazy to trim > >>>>>> the quotes. And if you have to ask what that's all about, I'll ask > >>>>>> again: who are you and what did you do to the Oscan Plameras who > >>>>>> posted those two messages in the URLs above? > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Daniel O. Escasa > >>>>>> independent IT consultant and writer > >>>>>> contributor, Free Software Magazine ( > http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com) > >>>>>> personal blog at http://descasa.i.ph > >>>>>> Twitter page at http://www.twitter.com/silverlokk > >>>>>> If we choose being kind over being right, we will be right every > time. > >>>>>>_________________________________________________ > >>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > >>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > >>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>_________________________________________________ > >>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > >>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > >>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > >>>_________________________________________________ > >>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > >>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > >>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > >>_________________________________________________ > >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > >> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > >>_________________________________________________ > >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > >> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > > _________________________________________________ > > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > -- http://jangestre.blogpsot.com
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
